Social and Environmental Sustainability, Workers’ Well-Being, and Affective Organizational Commitment in Palm Oil Industries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors 

Many thanks for the previlage to review you paper at this stage. To help improve the quality consider the following: 

i. Abstract: the rationale for this section is to enable your readers have insight to the maintain of the article by providing concise summary of work undertaken. As it stand there was limited information that present tangible insight to the work in general. I will recommend a careful review of the section and make it stand alone. 

ii. There are bold statements contained in the article (Introduction) which will need backing up instance line 40-45, Line 54 reword the sentence and remove the word "ref". [13]...... 

iii. Line 63-65 it was not clear how the establishing of 6.5 mil hectares limit relate to workers wellbeing. This need rewording 

iv. Considering that a section was dedicated for discussion it was not clear why the result section did combine discussion as against presenting the result only. This need revising 

v. Overall, the entire manuscript need further proof reading to strengthen the  points contained. 

The content will require further proofread to help strengthen the content .

 

 

Author Response

Points made by the Reviewer (1)	Authors’ responses to comments
i. Abstract: the rationale for this section is to enable your readers have insight to the maintain of the article by providing concise summary of work undertaken. As it stand there was limited information that present tangible insight to the work in general. I will recommend a careful review of the section and make it stand alone.	Thank you for the response on the overall manuscript. We have revised and highlighted the revised sections
ii. There are bold statements contained in the article (Introduction) which will need backing up instance line 40-45, Line 54 reword the sentence and remove the word "ref". [13]......	Thanks for your comment. We have modified this sections Please kindly see the highlighted sections of pages 2.
iii. Line 63-65 it was not clear how the establishing of 6.5 mil hectares limit relate to workers wellbeing. This need rewording	Thanks for this comments. We have revised this section. Please see highlighted sections of page 2.
iv. Considering that a section was dedicated for discussion it was not clear why the result section did combine discussion as against presenting the result only. This need revising	Thank you for the comment given. We have revised and renamed section 4.7 to “hypotheses testing”. We have further discussed our findings based on LR in discussion and conclusion section. Please see pages 10,12,13.
v. Overall, the entire manuscript need further proof reading to strengthen the  points contained.	Thanks for this comment. We have revised and proofread the manuscript again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this article, social and environmental sustainability are studied as factors influencing the workers' life quality, specifically, their well-being. The article requires improvements in several aspects. Firstly, the questions that were applied in the questionnaires are not described. Second, the percentage of questionnaires obtained was 27%. What were the factors that influenced this low percentage? On the other hand, the conclusions are obtained based on the workers' answers, but is there any support or analysis that allows justifying the sustainability and the policies or changes of a company and its impact on the well-being of the workers?

 

No comments.

 

Author Response

Points made by the Reviewer (2)	Authors’ responses to comments
In this article, social and environmental sustainability are studied as factors influencing the workers' life quality, specifically, their well-being. The article requires improvements in several aspects. Firstly, the questions that were applied in the questionnaires are not described.	Thank you for the response on the overall manuscript. We have revised and highlighted the revised sections. We have inserted all needed information related to questionnaires in our manuscript in Appendix 1. Please see highlighted sections of pages 9&18.
Second, the percentage of questionnaires obtained was 27%. What were the factors that influenced this low percentage?	Thanks for your comment. We have provided the justification of low response rates on page 6 in section 3.0.
On the other hand, the conclusions are obtained based on the workers' answers, but is there any support or analysis that allows justifying the sustainability and the policies or changes of a company and its impact on the well-being of the workers?	Thanks for yoru comment. We have amend this section and add more information in this regard. Please see highlighted sections in pages 12&13.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper represents a novel contribution to existing body of knowledge in this field. The methodology explicitly laid out how the data collection instrument (questionnaire) was designed and measures taken to ensure internal reliability of the data (Cronbach’s alpha). Findings are robustly discussed with references made to literature, as well as significant contributions of the study and its implications to industry, government and research. Study limitations are also highlighted and possible areas for future studies to be conducted. Overall, a well written academic paper. 

Author Response

Points made by the Reviewer (3)	Authors’ responses to comments
The paper represents a novel contribution to existing body of knowledge in this field. The methodology explicitly laid out how the data collection instrument (questionnaire) was designed and measures taken to ensure internal reliability of the data (Cronbach’s alpha). Findings are robustly discussed with references made to literature, as well as significant contributions of the study and its implications to industry, government and research. Study limitations are also highlighted and possible areas for future studies to be conducted. Overall, a well written academic paper.	Thank you for the response on the overall manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

I have reviewed the article "Social and Environmental Sustainability and Worker's Well-being of Palm Oil Industry: A Mediating Role of Affective Organizational Commitment."

The title should be shorter.

The paper is based on the questionnaire (as the authors have collected data from 112 workers employed in palm oil plantations in Malaysia). So only a calculation work is showing in the paper. However, the article has no innovative ideas, but statistical tools were used satisfactorily to illustrate the theme. Keywords should be increased.

The methodology also needs to be clarified.

English check is required.

Review the conclusion.

The reference should be more updated.

The paper should be organized in a more informative and precise way.

The paper should be the major revision.

English language is not up-to mark.

Author Response

Points made by the Reviewer (4)	Authors’ responses to comments
I have reviewed the article "Social and Environmental Sustainability and Worker's Well-being of Palm Oil Industry: A Mediating Role of Affective Organizational Commitment."   The title should be shorter.	Thank you for the response on the overall manuscript.
The paper is based on the questionnaire (as the authors have collected data from 112 workers employed in palm oil plantations in Malaysia). So only a calculation work is showing in the paper. However, the article has no innovative ideas, but statistical tools were used satisfactorily to illustrate the theme. Keywords should be increased.	The abstract has been revised. Also keyword has been revised.
The methodology also needs to be clarified.	Thanks for your comment. We have revised the methodology part and add some more information in this section. Please kindly see highlighted sections of page 6.
English check is required. Review the conclusion. The reference should be more updated.	Thanks for these comments. We have revised our manuscript accordingly.
The paper should be organized in a more informative and precise way.	We have revised section 4.7 and renamed it to hypotheses testing. Please see highlights in page 11.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors 

many thanks for taking time out to revise the work further. I am happy to recommend the work e accepted in the present format. 

Best regards 

To help improve the paper quality, further grammar proofread is encouraged.  

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved the paper and addressed all the required changes in the previous revision.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

I have gone through the article “Social and environmental sustainability, worker's well-being, and affective organizational commitment in palm oil industries” and found that the authors have responded satisfactorily to comments raised by reviewers and incorporated modifications in the revised manuscript. So I think, the paper should be accepted in revised form in the journal “Sustainability”.